11.07.2015 Views

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

column. The Phase 3 Report noted that arsenic leakage was always greater from the onceregeneratedalumina than the virgin alumina. For the 5-minute EBCT runs, an average arsenicleakage (up to 3200 BV) <strong>of</strong> 0.3 <strong>and</strong> 1.4 Fg/L was observed <strong>for</strong> the virgin <strong>and</strong> once-regeneratedAlcoa CPN alumina runs. For the Alcan alumina at an EBCT <strong>of</strong> 5 minutes, average arsenicleakage (up to 3200 BV) was 0.2 <strong>and</strong> 1.3 Fg/L <strong>for</strong> the virgin <strong>and</strong> once-regenerated aluminaruns. After 3200 BV, the normal breakthrough curve started, so the effluent arsenic was notsolely due to leakage. Since the run length <strong>of</strong> 4300 BV <strong>and</strong> breakthrough equation were bothbased on the once-regenerated Alcoa CPN alumina, arsenic leakage was also estimated <strong>for</strong>this alumina. The average arsenic leakage was 1.4 Fg/L It was assumed that the secondcolumn would exhibit the same leakage characteristics as the first column. Thus, arsenicleakage <strong>for</strong> the second column was assumed constant at 1.4 Fg/L. It was assumed that 1.4Fg/L would pass through both columns starting at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the run. The second columnwill probably remove some <strong>of</strong> the arsenic that is passing through the first column, so thisapproach likely overestimates the amount <strong>of</strong> arsenic leakage <strong>for</strong> the second column. However,since there was no way to estimate a breakthrough curve <strong>for</strong> the second column, it was notpossible to estimate arsenic in the effluent due to reduced adsorptive capacity. The arsenicleakage estimate was used to account <strong>for</strong> all arsenic that would pass through the secondcolumn - from both leakage <strong>and</strong> reduced adsorptive capacity. Thus, it likely underestimatesthe amount <strong>of</strong> arsenic that passed through the second column into the finished water. Thearsenic leakage was estimated using the following equation:As leakage = (1.4 Fg/L)(RL BV)(16,032 L/BV) Where RL = run length in BVFor a run length <strong>of</strong> 18,500 BV:As leakage = 415 gramsF. The available arsenic capacity <strong>of</strong> the second column is estimated by adding the arsenicleakage to the minimum arsenic capacity <strong>of</strong> the second column.Available <strong>Arsenic</strong> Capacity <strong>of</strong> Column 2 = 3814 grams + 415 grams = 4229 gramsD-18

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!